Comparative study of endoscopic band ligation versus injection sclerotherapy with 50% dextrose in water, in symptomatic internal haemorrhoids.

BACKGROUND: Haemorrhoids are common anorectal conditions seen in surgical practice, with various treatment modalities. This study compared the short-term outcome of injection sclerotherapy with 50% dextrose in water and rubber band ligation in the management of second-and third-degree haemorrhoids, in terms of symptoms improvement, complications, recurrence rate, retreatment rate and acceptability. METHODOLOGY: This was a prospective comparative study that was carried out in the endoscopic unit of the Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex, Ile-Ife, in southwestern Nigeria. Sixty consecutive patients with second- and third-degree haemorrhoids, who consented, were recruited into the study and were randomised into two groups. Group A had endoscopic injection sclerotherapy and Group B had endoscopic rubber band ligation. RESULTS: With regard to anal protrusion, more patients consistently reported either complete (16 [64.4%]) or partial (9 [40.9%]) resolution of symptoms in Group B, compared to Group A which had 7 (28.0%) and 5 (22.7%) cases, respectively (P = 0.03). Resolution of anal bleeding was initially more in Group B than A (22 [95.7%] vs. 17 [77.3%] patients, respectively), in the first 24-h post-treatment; however, within the 1st week, this ratio was reversed (P = 0.07). The retreatment rate for Group A and B was 23.3% and 13.3%, respectively,P = 0.34. More patients in Group B experienced severe pain post-treatment compared to Group A (P = 0.01). Three-month post-treatment, two (11.8%) patients in Group A and one (4.5%) in Group B had recurrence of anal bleeding (P = 0.42). There was no recurrence in anal protrusion in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic rubber band ligation had a significantly higher success rate than endoscopic injection sclerotherapy, in terms of resolution of anal protrusion, but with higher pain score.

Surgical outcome of cutting diathermy versus scalpel skin incisions in uncomplicated appendectomy: A comparative study.

BACKGROUND: It is traditionally believed that diathermy skin incisions produce a comparatively poorer surgical outcome despite recent evidences to the contrary. This study set out to compare diathermy and scalpel skin incisions with respect to immediate post-operative pain, surgical-site infection and surgical scar cosmesis. METHODOLOGY: This was a randomised, double-blinded study comparing cutting diathermy and scalpel skin incisions in patients undergoing open appendectomies for uncomplicated appendicitis. The post-operative pain was rated with the Visual Analogue Pain Scale 6, 12 and 24 h postoperatively, and 30 day wound infection was rated with the Southampton score. Scar cosmesis was assessed at 3 months, by a plastic surgery trainee, using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). The patients also self-evaluated their scars using POSAS. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients were randomised to cutting diathermy (32) and scalpel (32) skin incision groups. The mean pain score was higher in the diathermy incised wounds, but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.094). There was one wound infection recorded in the scalpel incision group and none in the diathermy incision group (P = 0.524). At 3 months post-surgery, there was no difference between the diathermy and scalpel incised wounds in mean (±SD) objective POSAS scores (15.64 [±5.98] vs. 17.79 [±6.37], P = 0.228) or subjective POSAS scores (22.44 [±13.13] vs. 22.21 [±13.17], P = 0.951), respectively. The mean scar satisfaction score, as assessed by the patients, was better for the diathermy incised wounds, but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.406). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing open appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis, skin incision with a cutting diathermy is not inferior to the scalpel in surgical outcome, with respect to post-operative pain, wound infection and surgical scar cosmesis.